Notices
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: resource based economy/post-scarcity system

  1. #1 resource based economy/post-scarcity system 
    Forum Sophomore somfooleishfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    196
    wiki post scarcity if you dont know what it is.

    I'd like to hear thoughts on whether this is feasible in my lifetime (I'm 20)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Perhaps with something like energy, but I'm reluctant to think it will happen with things like food and water. I mean, that's a pretty significant shift. It could be done, but it would take something really major to push us in that direction.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore somfooleishfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Perhaps with something like energy, but I'm reluctant to think it will happen with things like food and water. I mean, that's a pretty significant shift. It could be done, but it would take something really major to push us in that direction.
    economy crashing?

    P.s. Not in the slightest bit my area of interest or knowledge. I'm clueless about economics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by somfooleishfool
    economy crashing?
    TBH, I think that would make it harder. To achieve what you're proposing would IMO require a fairly significant front-end investment. The invention itself is one piece, but then you need to alter our infrastructure in a robust enough way to realize the benefits of that invention for all 7-9billion people in the equation. A crashed economy doesn't lend itself very well to focusing available capital toward a specific objective nor to large ramps in equipment production and distribution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    The so-called Fair Trading Office of the
    United Kingdom earlier this month refused a request from a British House of
    Commons committee, that it investigate an expanding global
    scandal about how metals prices are being driven skyward by Wall
    Street banks and London hedge funds. The Fair Trading Office is
    supposed to oversee the London Metals Exchange (LME), on which
    the zooming metal commodity prices are being set by speculation.

    The Science and Technology Committee of the House of
    Commons, reacting to metal user-companies' complaints, said, "The
    same [financial] firms that trade metals are able to hold large
    amounts of metal stored in warehouses monitored by the LME. There
    is evidence to suggest that trader-owned warehouses are favoring
    their own proprietary business over other users of the exchange."

    These commodity speculative "traders" are four banks and
    hedge funds, including Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase. All
    have been using the Federal Reserve's "quantitative easing"
    money-printing to generate speculative funds, and all recently
    become the owners of networks of warehouses where up to 25% of
    world metals supplies have "gone in, and not come back out."

    In the past 18 months, Goldman, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and
    trading firms Glencore International PLC and Trafigura Beheer BV
    have snapped up warehouse operators, all of them accredited to
    house metal traded through the LME. The four firms have become
    landlords to about two-thirds of the LME's entire metal stocks,
    from aluminum to copper to zinc. The warehouses are a profitable
    way to bet on commodities markets, over and above actual
    speculative trading.

    In 2010, J.P. Morgan acquired Henry Bath & Son as part of
    the New York bank's purchase of RBS Sempra Commodities. Goldman
    bought Metro International Trade Services LLC, a Romulus, Mich.,
    warehousing company, for an undisclosed sum. Trafigura, the
    world's second-largest metal trader after Glencore, purchased
    U.K.-based NEMS Ltd. Glencore paid $209 million for Pacorini
    Metals, the metal-storage business of Pacorini Group, an Italian,
    family-run firm.

    Goldman's operations in Detroit are at the center of the
    controversy, because aluminum prices are driving up the trading
    price in London. Warehouses like the one along the Detroit River
    hold about one million tons of aluminum, or almost 25% of the
    LME-traded stocks. Metal users such as beverage giant Coca-Cola
    Co. and can maker Novelis Inc. have expressed concern to the LME
    that the Detroit warehouses send out too little of the
    commodities they need.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++

    Capitalism in operation, like Enron- will above described firms suffer Enron-like fall from grace? Only time and inow can tell...

    For Prince's part, answer seems obvious- do not submit to arbitrary limitation of terrestrial resources. To prevent eventual global disaster, asteroids must be manipulated, capturing same will provide much resources of valuable usefulness.

    Think Prince has no smart brain?

    OK, try SIR Fred Hoyle and his little story "Element 79", in which gold asteroid mashes part of UK. Immediately is this fortune from space manipulated, "warehoused" as it were, so much for "free markets".

    Nice thread, you guys are smart!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by somfooleishfool
    economy crashing?
    TBH, I think that would make it harder. To achieve what you're proposing would IMO require a fairly significant front-end investment. The invention itself is one piece, but then you need to alter our infrastructure in a robust enough way to realize the benefits of that invention for all 7-9billion people in the equation. A crashed economy doesn't lend itself very well to focusing available capital toward a specific objective nor to large ramps in equipment production and distribution.
    Interesting observation, but was economy crashed in Great Depression?

    If not, will it be accurate to say, say, "sub-optimal conditions"?

    Despite this, FDR was able to develop infrastructure in USA building dams, industries, whole new cities in time to become "Arsenal of Democracy", not to mention Manhattan Project about which much was discussed on another thread.

    Is historical fact, dotcomrades.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by somfooleishfool
    economy crashing?
    TBH, I think that would make it harder. To achieve what you're proposing would IMO require a fairly significant front-end investment. The invention itself is one piece, but then you need to alter our infrastructure in a robust enough way to realize the benefits of that invention for all 7-9billion people in the equation. A crashed economy doesn't lend itself very well to focusing available capital toward a specific objective nor to large ramps in equipment production and distribution.
    Interesting observation, but was economy crashed in Great Depression?

    If not, will it be accurate to say, say, "sub-optimal conditions"?
    Not really accurate, no. It's an extreme under-statement to suggest that great depression was "sub-optimal."
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •